Deciphering the twittersphere can be flustratin'

Published: Saturday, June 15, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, June 15, 2013 at 8:02 p.m.

It's easy to just toss out the phrase, “Boy, social media has really thrown the newspaper industry for a loop.”

Twenty years ago, it was common to hear everyone in this “business” talking about how this Internet thing was gonna really change our world. We knew it was coming. Saw it coming, heard it coming, even participated in its build-up and arrival, yet when it got its kudzu grip on us and became the new Information Age, we all looked at each other and had the nerve to say, “Hell's bells, who saw THAT coming?”

Now, combine that with Twitter, the most popular — and dangerous — offspring of modern technology.

If not for a still-healthy number of fans who prefer to have others do their research and their spreading of gossip, big-city sports writers wouldn't really be needed to cover the local teams. (Um, well, of course, columnists would always be needed because, well, someone has to tell you what it all means.) Between the flood of available stats online, and the ability of athletes to take their opinions and reactions directly to the masses, fans are loaded with opportunities and possibilities.

Which means big-league beat writers have seen their jobs redefined. In many cases, they're not necessarily the “media” in the true sense of the word, but often find themselves gathering reactions to something a player said (tweeted, actually) when that certain player decided to take his comments straight to the masses instead of through the media like previous generations.

Weird existence, but it beats the carnival circuit, I reckon.

New examples of this “new world order” surface all the time, with the most recent involving the Chicago Cubs, former third baseman Ian Stewart and something called the “loyalty clause.” Stewart apparently didn't like his demotion to Triple A, tweeted bitterly and was suspended by the organization for 10 days.

They say the 10-gamer was due to disloyalty, but in a perfect world, it would've been five for poor decision-making and, as with nearly every celebrity or athletic tweeter, five for really bad grammar. At least in the good ol' days some beat writer would've likely cleaned up Stewart's chatter.

And in the very old days, back when notepads ruled and we hadn't yet employed recorders and learned what all we were missing with our archaic pen and paper, someone might've actually made Stewart sound reasonably intelligent.

Which, yes, brings us to a new version of an old favorite: “What he tweeted/What he meant.”

What Ian Stewart tweeted: “there going to let me Rott in AAA all season and then non tender me after.”

What he meant:Unfortunately, I'll likely continue getting my mail in Iowa until September, then be free to take my .168 batting average to the highest bidder.”

What he tweeted: “I meant they might as Well release since I have no shot of a call up....let me Sign elsewhere.”

What he meant:My future in Chicago appears limited. All options are open — except, it appears, the option of me learning to hit the curveball.

The lack of a proper relationship with his cap key may or may not be indicative of a guy who will have problems with big-league pitching. But it's definitely indicative of a guy who would've benefited from the old-school media/athlete relationship.

In years past, the grammatical issue was a common subject among those who covered auto racing — particularly NASCAR, where you heard the word flustrated often enough to send you scrambling to the dictionary, just in case.

For what it's worth, Miriam Webster never heard of flustrated, but best I can tell, it's a hybrid of flustered and frustrated, which can, for instance, describe that feeling you get when you leave the mall and can't remember where you parked. Most common variation: flustratin', as in, “I hate being flustrated, but I tell you, the whole thing is downright flustratin'.”

Some print-news outlets ran racers' quotes verbatim, others sanitized in a way to make Sterling Marlin sound like Little Lord Fauntleroy.

Nowadays, the grammatical issue covers all sports. Some reporters may still clean up an athlete's words, if for no other reason, to at least make it easier for the reader to understand. But Twitter is a whole other affair. If you clean up a guy's tweet when running it as a quote within a story, everyone on Twitter can go see the original, so what to do?

Right now, the policy seems to say we run it in all its non-glory. And if you feel any sense of loss for what's become of our language or our lack of respect for it, you will continue to cringe. Every time.

---------------------------------

Don't forget your “Daily Willie” among the blogs at news-journalonline.com

<p>It's easy to just toss out the phrase, “Boy, social media has really thrown the newspaper industry for a loop.”</p><p>Twenty years ago, it was common to hear everyone in this “business” talking about how this Internet thing was gonna really change our world. We knew it was coming. Saw it coming, heard it coming, even participated in its build-up and arrival, yet when it got its kudzu grip on us and became the new Information Age, we all looked at each other and had the nerve to say, “Hell's bells, who saw THAT coming?”</p><p>Now, combine that with Twitter, the most popular — and dangerous — offspring of modern technology.</p><p>If not for a still-healthy number of fans who prefer to have others do their research and their spreading of gossip, big-city sports writers wouldn't really be needed to cover the local teams. (Um, well, of course, columnists would always be needed because, well, <i>someone</i> has to tell you what it all <i>means</i>.) Between the flood of available stats online, and the ability of athletes to take their opinions and reactions directly to the masses, fans are loaded with opportunities and possibilities.</p><p>Which means big-league beat writers have seen their jobs redefined. In many cases, they're not necessarily the “media” in the true sense of the word, but often find themselves gathering reactions to something a player said (tweeted, actually) when that certain player decided to take his comments straight to the masses instead of through the media like previous generations.</p><p>Weird existence, but it beats the carnival circuit, I reckon. </p><p>New examples of this “new world order” surface all the time, with the most recent involving the Chicago Cubs, former third baseman Ian Stewart and something called the “loyalty clause.” Stewart apparently didn't like his demotion to Triple A, tweeted bitterly and was suspended by the organization for 10 days.</p><p>They say the 10-gamer was due to disloyalty, but in a perfect world, it would've been five for poor decision-making and, as with nearly every celebrity or athletic tweeter, five for really bad grammar. At least in the good ol' days some beat writer would've likely cleaned up Stewart's chatter.</p><p>And in the <i>very</i> old days, back when notepads ruled and we hadn't yet employed recorders and learned what all we were missing with our archaic pen and paper, someone might've actually made Stewart sound reasonably intelligent.</p><p>Which, yes, brings us to a new version of an old favorite: “What he tweeted/What he meant.” </p><p><b>What Ian Stewart tweeted:</b> “there going to let me Rott in AAA all season and then non tender me after.”</p><p><b>What he meant:</b> <i>Unfortunately, I'll likely continue getting my mail in Iowa until September, then be free to take my .168 batting average to the highest bidder.”</i></p><p><b>What he tweeted:</b> “I meant they might as Well release since I have no shot of a call up....let me Sign elsewhere.”</p><p><b>What he meant:</b> <i>My future in Chicago appears limited. All options are open — except, it appears, the option of me learning to hit the curveball.</i></p><p>The lack of a proper relationship with his cap key may or may not be indicative of a guy who will have problems with big-league pitching. But it's definitely indicative of a guy who would've benefited from the old-school media/athlete relationship.</p><p>In years past, the grammatical issue was a common subject among those who covered auto racing — particularly NASCAR, where you heard the word <i>flustrated</i> often enough to send you scrambling to the dictionary, just in case.</p><p>For what it's worth, Miriam Webster never heard of <i>flustrated</i>, but best I can tell, it's a hybrid of flustered and frustrated, which can, for instance, describe that feeling you get when you leave the mall and can't remember where you parked. Most common variation: <i>flustratin'</i>, as in, “I hate being flustrated, but I tell you, the whole thing is downright flustratin'.”</p><p>Some print-news outlets ran racers' quotes verbatim, others sanitized in a way to make Sterling Marlin sound like Little Lord Fauntleroy.</p><p>Nowadays, the grammatical issue covers all sports. Some reporters may still clean up an athlete's words, if for no other reason, to at least make it easier for the reader to understand. But Twitter is a whole other affair. If you clean up a guy's tweet when running it as a quote within a story, everyone on Twitter can go see the original, so what to do?</p><p>Right now, the policy seems to say we run it in all its non-glory. And if you feel any sense of loss for what's become of our language or our lack of respect for it, you will continue to cringe. Every time. </p><p> ---------------------------------</p><p><i>Don't forget your “Daily Willie” among the blogs at news-journalonline.com</i></p>